Comment
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30465-3.
Foley catheterisation versus oral misoprostol to induce labour
Affiliations
- PMID: 29508742
- DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30465-3
Item in Clipboard
Comment
Foley catheterisation versus oral misoprostol to induce labour
Lancet.
.
No abstract available
Comment on
-
Foley catheterisation versus oral misoprostol for induction of labour in hypertensive women in India (INFORM): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2017 Aug 12;390(10095):669-680. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31367-3. Epub 2017 Jun 28. Lancet. 2017. PMID: 28668289 Clinical Trial.
Similar articles
-
Foley catheterisation versus oral misoprostol to induce labour - Author's reply.Lancet. 2018 Mar 3;391(10123):837-838. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30466-5. Lancet. 2018. PMID: 29508743 No abstract available.
-
[Foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol for labour induction].Duodecim. 2012;128(20):2093-102. Duodecim. 2012. PMID: 23167168 Finnish.
-
Pre-induction cervical ripening: transcervical foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Feb;25(2):134-9. doi: 10.1080/01443610500040737. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005. PMID: 15814391 Clinical Trial.
-
Intracervical Foley balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labor induction: A review.Semin Perinatol. 2015 Oct;39(6):441-3. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2015.07.005. Epub 2015 Aug 31. Semin Perinatol. 2015. PMID: 26338441 Review.
-
Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis.BJOG. 2011 May;118(6):647-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02905.x. Epub 2011 Feb 18. BJOG. 2011. PMID: 21332637 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
